Why are City’s sponsors inflated? We hear it a lot but you tell me which is above market value & why?
I know you are supportive but it’s part of the myth. Has anyone considered that Etihad is lower than market value?
"but but they can't fill their stadium... has to be"
Edit:
Just to vent some of my frustrations because I like to remind myself of this too.
It's a feedbackloop that will never end because nobody really looks into what they're saying. That probably includes people who aren't City haters sadly. People tend to go with popular opinion on things that they don't want to invest much time into. To be fair, we can't expect everyone to care as much as we do on the details. Except for the ones who act like they know better than every City fan and UEFA themselves, who never argued what they're saying at CAS.
As City fans, we know City do fill their stadium(higher avg fill rate than most), they have a season ticket waiting list and have done for years etc. That's also just matchday revenue and City's isn't anywhere near the highest in the big six anyway, so that's not where to look for a swindle.
The shirt makers seem to think City are worth a hefty wedge, which says a lot about the growing global fanbase. They know their market better than any of the journos, rival club reps and bitter rival fans.
The broadcasters know City are one of the most widely watched teams too(even the ones who don't want to admit it because of their allegiances). How many are City fans is not important to them. Same goes for sponsors to an extent. That's why not all of UEFA's approved auditor firms were in agreement. Specifically with the Etihad one, there was a powerpoint slide doing the rounds on twitter at the time(2014), that many giddy City haters took at face value.
If one firm was saying it was overvalued, another said it was about right and another said it was under what they were potentially worth at that time. Is it not more logical/fair to say: Anything between the lowest and highest valuation is fair and proper? Rather than cherry picking the lowest one and pretending that's all there was, as some tried to do... Even after the increase to £67m, it was still under the highest valuation(FMV range of £40m-£77m, as per the CAS verdict report). City have undeniably grown a lot since 2014.
The smaller deals, nobody really cared about. UEFA felt they were slightly overvalued(FMV range of £4m-£11m for Etisalat, as per the CAS report) and also suspected they were related party(without proving it), City didn't agree with them. However, both sides agreed(signed agreement) not to pursue it any further, if City kept it at that level for the next 3 years. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone knows better.
